Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening everybody. It is 6:04 p.m. on the 19th of February, 2026. It's a regularly scheduled meeting of the Summerville Planning Board. I am Mike Capuano. I'm the chairman of the planning board. With me tonight is our vice chair Amelia Abof, our clerk Jan Habib, our members Lynn Richards, and our brand new uh alternate member Carly Copa who gets to join us for the very first time tonight for a thrilling meeting. U pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting of the planning board is being conducted via remote participation. A video recording of the proceedings will be available on the city's website or by emailing planning boardsvillemma.gov. Um this meeting is being recorded. We don't have any cases per se on the agenda tonight. What we have are some um administrative matters and presentation by um Alvaro on chapter 40B. So, the first thing I'd like to do is look at the meeting minutes, draft meeting minutes of January 15, 2026. Does anybody have any suggested revisions to the draft meeting minutes? Okay, seeing none, the chair moves to adopt the draft meeting minutes of January 15, 2026 as the minutes of the planning board, seconded by Amelia Avaro. Can you call the role?

Khabib I. Lynn Richards I. Amelia Abos. I Michael Capuano.

I we have meeting mats. The next is 44 White Street. Uh we voted on this. This was an application that came before the board a number of times. Uh was was heard by us and discussed a number of times that uh that application had three requests uh for relief as part of their application. One was a um special permit for use, one was a special permit for parking relief, and one was a site plan approval to build uh a three-story building in an MR4 district. What happened a few weeks ago was uh I think a bit surprising to um to the members of the board here, myself included. Um the site plan approval for parking uh passed I believe 4 to 1. The uh special permit rather for parking passed 4 to one. The special permit for the use I believe was unanimous. And then there was a a an interesting vote on the site plan approval wherein uh I tallied and Alvaro confirmed the tally of three yes votes and two no votes which means that under the rules um and statutes of Massachusetts that that vote failed. Um it came to our attention that that vote was mistallied for the site plan approval. Um and that there was um a a vote that was tallied as a no that should have been tallied as as a yes. Um so I I believe that vote was was Amelia. So I'm going to um welcome her to say whatever she'd like.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity for the correction. Um it was my intention to vote in the uh positive on the site plan approval. I think I had gone to say yay. Um but my audio was cut off at the beginning of the syllable and that was tallied as a nay vote. So I do apologize for the confusion but can confirm that it was fully my intention to um vote in the affirmative on the site plan. Thank you. That that's a ministerial correction and I appreciate uh you you kind of coming to my attention and saying the vote was mis mis tallied. Um I do want to remind people about the difference between special permits and site plan approvals and the and the standards that are necessary um in evaluating both of those. Special permits are very discretionary. We have a lot of latitude in being able to approve, modify, um, deny special permits because they are not allowed under the rules. They are special permits. They are asking special permission. Site plan approval under Massachusetts law is a very different thing. It only requires a uh a majority vote. And effectively, without getting too deep into the into the weeds, um I I would, you know, if necessary, we can get a formal legal opinion from our law department. But effectively the only way that we can deny a a site plan approval is if the application is not complete uh or if the requests made in the the um the application are um so intrigent that no reasonable conditions can be imposed to mitigate them. There was no finding by the planning staff that that was the case. there was no discussion by members of the planning board that that was the case. Um and a a failed vote on a site plan approval for this particular application

um likely would have uh exposed this board to to litigation by um by the applicant and I I'd go so far as to say we'd likely lose on that. Um, so if somebody has an issue with an application, the appropriate way to voice that opposition is to render your vote with a discretionary permit unless the non-discretionary permit, like I said, is going to be so intrigent um intractable that it can't be remedied by a reasonable condition. And that was nowhere in the record for this particular case. Um, one other thing on this particular vote I don't expect people to vote the way I vote. Um, but as the chair I do have somewhat of a responsibility to have an idea of where the vote is going to be. Um, just so I can have an idea of do we continue to is it meritorious to continue working with the applicant to see if we can get to a place where uh where the board can be supportive if the board is otherwise not supportive. Um, and if if they can't, they can't. You know, we've we've denied special permits before, and I'm sure we'll do it again. Um, but to the extent that it was my understanding that that there was not a concern um on on on this particular application to then see that there was a uh a failed site plan approval vote or what I thought was a site plan approval denial. um was concerning. So to benefit the board going forward so we can fairly evaluate um where we stand as as as colleagues and a board and where an applicant stands as it relates to uh the progress of their application. Um

I I re I really would would hate to see that again. Um I think that kind of took people by surprise and not and not in a great way. So, um I think what we've got I see uh Lynn's Lynn's hand of have we corrected the record? Yes. Uh thank you Ameilia for correcting that and that we'll move forward with the decision as as the board meant. Thanks. Uh yeah, Lynn.

Um Michael, procedural question. Um uh for you in that we spent a lot on 44 White Street. We spent a lot of time talking about the parking um but to my recollection and I didn't go back and review I think I think that first came on almost um in September uh 44 White Street. um all the all of the prior co convert all the prior meetings but to my recollection we never discussed the um other use permit changes in the site plan. It was almost focus our conversation solely on the parking and we never talked more broadly um about the different aspects of the of the site plan or or the use. And so my procedural question to you is um if if as a board member I don't know how to say this uh I feel you're calling the vote too early because I feel there could be more discussion on the other two points. Can we bring that up or how should that be how should that be raised? because if I was in your shoes, I would and you generally run meetings of kind of getting a sense of what people are thinking, but in this case, we didn't talk about those other two issues. So, um I was a little surprised that we had a vote and I didn't know how to convey to you that I think we needed more conversation. So, procedurally, what could we have done? Dolan, the way I try to do it, and I think you've you've seen how I run meetings, um, is is I try to get a sense of, yeah, obviously the pocky issue on this particular application was was the issue that was going to be kind of most contentious. Um, everybody knew that, the applicant knew that going in. I generally open it up and I think I did in this circumstance, too. We can, you know, review the, you know, the the

minutes as needed. Um I asked people's view on the application generally. It happened to focus on the I think I raised the pocking issue um first and people kind of went on that but nobody's precluded from talking about other aspects of the application. Um we this particular use special permit you know clearly nobody had a problem with it. had housing. Um but in other circumstances we've had use special permits where people did have a concern um you know is this the appropriate use for a you know site in the middle of Davis Square right another weed store um that type of thing. So whenever there is discussion to be had on an application, I don't limit it to or I don't think I limit it um to specific aspects of the application or specific votes um and and avenues of relief that an applicant is having. So if there's a concern that someone has about something that might not have just been raised, raise it. um you know it be it kind of becomes open discussion by the members of the board um not just necessarily following the track of where the questions and discussion has gone. That's that's really that's really good to to know because I had been wanting to discuss the overall site plan um for several meetings and I kept looking for an opportunity and I I now I understand that it'd be like hey can we talk a little bit about the site plan XYZ and if you feel we aren't at a point to move off of whatever topic you can say that but then now you've got the information to bring it back at another point in time. Thank you for that clarification.

Yep. Of course. Uh, does anybody else have anything they would like to discuss on the clarification of of White Street? Okay. Okay. See, excuse me. Seeing none, uh, the only other item on this agenda is a presentation on chapter 40. Um, now I've been on the planning board for a while. Um, 2008. I think there's only been in in my memory one other 40B project that um that has come to the city. I might be off on that. Um, but I think the only one that that was uh a 40B project was um the Winter Hillstar Market and I don't remember anything else before that. And so I was hoping that Alvaro could give an overview because there is another application that is uh it's my understanding that application is not yet complete. Um but it will be coming to the uh to the city to the ZBA um and and in certain circumstances our board uh at sometime in the future. So, I was hoping that and I was hope I was thinking it was going to be beneficial to the board um to have a presentation on what this is because it's not something that we that we see very often. Um and so I have a a a an understanding of 40B. I'm certainly not an expert. Um Alvaro is our uh planning staff leazison and and is so I was hoping we might be able to benefit from an overview. Um, and I know that there are members of the public

here who also, I'm sure, are interested in um, viewing this application or viewing this this uh, presentation. And I'm not going to open it up to members of the public because this isn't a public meeting. This is just a presentation by um, by city staff. And there will be many many many other opportunities in the future for um members of the public to get involved when the process is actually ready to uh begin engagement. So u members of the board because we will have a um likely responsibility or a part responsibility in this process um please feel free to ask questions um as as you see necessary. Um, can everybody see my screen before the be presentation? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

So, I'll just go over and try to be as helpful as possible just to give the overview of the 4EB process and then I have one slide specifically to what the role of the planning board will be. Um I think sometimes the key of the 4EB is to understand the timeline exactly because with all the small procedures that it has it can be a little confusing. Um so just to kind of start us off um the 4B is um permitting mechanism that developers use to uh develop housing. Um these requires what is called a project eligibility letter and that's something that happens through going to one of four state agencies. Uh so mass housing, MHP, DH, the HCD or mass development any of them can issue a project eligibility letter. Um and so in many cases the in all cases the developer will have to present a project to them and that's kind of like where this project or like this process will start. So once they submit the application for the project eligibility letter um the agency that is reviewing this application will have to make sure that all the materials are complete and that's when the clock itself will start. um which is where they provide all of these plans and all the information that they provided to the community um to the CBA and to the local boards to provide comments back to the agency and that's where they will have up to 30 days for them to um make a decision if the developer deserves or not uh or meets all the requirements for a project eligibility letter. Um in this particular case the process is currently paused at this moment because the application was not complete. So the

state agency is looking and working with the developer gave them an opportunity to provide the rest of the information. So once they finalize that and they make sure that application is complete they will let us know and provide us with the materials and then we as staff we can provide it to our different boards so you can provide comments and send it back to the agency. Um so after these 30 statuto 30-day comment period goes by that's when the state um agency can make the decision and then they can provide the project eligibility eligibility letter for the developer to move forward in front of the CVA. Um so the CBA of course is the uh board in the CA in this case for the cities that will be looking permitting these projects. Um no developer can move forward to apply with the CVA if they don't have a project eligibility letter. Um so once the application has been filed with the CVA, the CVA has 7 days to distribute all of the materials that they have received um to the different boards to receive comment prior to open a public hearing. Um in this case of course the planning board will be an advisory will be participating as an advisory board providing comments to the CBA. Um and in many cases that's where in many communities this is where the planning board will be looking at the waiverss that the application is applying for. Um what zoning are they looking to bypass? Um what is the connection with the master plan that summerly has in place. Um so all of those comments can be provided uh to the CVA so they can look at that information once they're opening the public hearing. as usually the public hearings from the CBA will be lo looking at an specific topic at each of those meetings.

Um so like I said within 30 days from the CPA filing to the CBA they must open the public hearing. Once the CBA has opened the public hearing, there is um a mo there's 15 days where they can claim what is called safe harbor. And safe harbor is the mechanism that communities have to um that they have met the legislation in regards to affordable housing. So they are not impose a forb and they can either deny it if that was the case or they can work with the applicant to impose a series of restrictions so the project will meet more the zoning and the master plan of the community. Um there is two ways to meet um safe harbor. One of them is uh the shi percentage. So this is the subsidized housing inventory and that's when communities have over 10% of their uh affordable housing stock. So if you kind of like take account all the housing that exists in Somerville and then you look at all the affordable housing as an numerator over the denominator. You kind of like get the percentage and then you'll see what is the percentage of affordable housing that uh summer has. As of now, the numbers that um EOHLC has provided us uh are updated on September of 2025 and they provide us that we are at 8.93 of SHI. Um the other form that you a community can claim safe harbor is to clam what is called the general land

area minimum and that's when a community has over 1.5% of its total land um as subsidized housing. So in 2002 the the city of sville calculated that we had 3.8 of glam uh occupying shi units. um this can be recalculated but the only moment that AOHLC can provide an update on this number um is when there's a determination for a 4B as because of there is restrictions of confidentiality when it comes down to affordable housing. So that's why they are not give they're not able to give this data or make this data public and as an advisory but just in the case that a CBA is trying to claim safe harbor and is because there is a 4B coming or in front of the CBA also feel free to raise your hand if you have any questions I'm as I'm explaining

um can can I ask a quick question um um so it's unclear to me um given what you just said um around the glam whether or not Somerville can claim it. It claim can claim safe harbor. It appears as though they can because they meet one of the criteria. But um is that definitive or is that just um uh intended?

So at this moment is intended. Um of course it depends. It's up to the CBA decide if they would like to play safe harbor. Um but because numbers do change, housing stock changes all the time. Um you cannot have an you cannot base kind of like the answer on the numbers that we're looking at the SHI of two that of September of 2025. Um and because this is looking at rest restricted information because it's affordable housing. Um the CBA will have to claim safe harbor and let EOHLC know which is the executive office of living communities and housing of Massachusetts that they plan to say to claim safe harbor provide all the data that they have and then they will look at the information and say yes or no you do meet safe harbor based on glam. when there last time that this was calculated this was on 2022 and at that point Somerville did meet Glam.

So we won't know if Somerville will claim So two two things. We don't know if Somerville the city will claim Safe Harbor um until we get to this part of the process. And then number two, we won't know um if they're eligible to claim it until we get to that point in the process. Correct. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Um, on the previous slide, you had two terms, the SHI, subsidized housing, and then affordable housing. And are those two terms the same thing?

Yes. And in this presentation, I was using them as the same thing. The subsidized housing inventory is just the SHI, but you're looking at the affordable housing number. Okay. Thank you. Elvaro, I'm trying to remember back in 2022. Um I Amelia was was on the board. Jan, were you on the board as well in 2020? I think so. I thought so. Um yes, I was. Mr. Chair,

I thought so. I thought so. I have no recollection of what happened the last time Somerville had a had a 40B application. Um, and that would have been at the the Winter Hillar market. Um I remember that we had had discussions offline with the proposed developer about um phasing and going through the planning process and then they elected uh not to go through the planning process and instead decided to go the 40B route. Um I don't remember I I I don't even think I know um what the city's position was on um safe harbor at the time and I don't remember that as a as at the time I was still the chairman of the planning board uh that the planning board received any information from the ZBA following that. um you know it's a number of years ago so my my memory might be a little foggy but I'm wondering one if you can answer the question about what we did in 2022 and if Amelia and Jan who were still on the board in 2022 with me um might have any clearer recollection on what happened during that time period than than I do right Uh yeah,

I thought I remember during that process that there was a extended negotiation and back and forth between the developer and the ZBA at the conclusion of which they were making the decision on whether or not to claim safe harbor. And I know that's not the question you were asking, Michael, but I'm having a hard time reconciling my understanding of the process of that at that time with what's being described here. Um, Alvaro, I don't know if you have any I don't mean to be asking you questions on history from before you were here.

No, no worries. I was looking at the decision and so to my understanding that was a friendly forb. So the city did not claim safe harbor to um stop let's say or deny the 4B because they work on tandem with the developer to um decide on the project the final project. Um, so the decision in the hearings were following the 4B process, but there was no intention to deny because they were working together as a friendly for you rather than like an unfriendly for you or something like you know like in the case that when they don't try to work with the city to apply for it then in those cases that's when CBAs usually trigger safe harbor because they don't have a clear understanding of what the project will be looking at or if there will be any sort of assistance. or uh potential work with the developer. So,

I think that answers kind of my my second question as to what the city did. My first question was what did the ZBA do relative to its involvement with the planning board once that process kicked off? Because I do not remember any um full engagement by the ZBA with the planning board once that once that process began. that I don't have information. Um, also from reading the records, I didn't find any information related to that. I would expect that that'll be the case this time.

Uh, anybody else? Okay, thanks. You can keep going.

Yep. Um so kind of looking at the period if there were a case where the CVA claims safe harbor um there will be 15 days for the developer uh to appeal to mass housing um and the CVA and so within 30 days um Mass Housing must issue a decision explaining if um the city does meet safe harbor or not. Um so this will come down if one were to appeal. Um if that decision was to wear appeal, the public hearing must still open in this period. Um because the clerk technically will still tick in from the moment that the the hearing was open by the CVA. Then once they review the application and they decided to claim safe harbor and so similar to other um mechanisms of permitting there's a time limit of 180 days from the opening of the CVA of the hearing uh for it to close unless there is an extension uh agreed among the developer and the CVA and so within 40 days from the close of the public hearing or extended as the developer and the CVA agree the CBA must come down to a decision and it has to be filed with the city clerk and within 20 days of that um there's the current the typical appeal period where anybody can appeal appeal to the decision and so if there's no appeals after those 20 days and the comprehensive permit has been approved um then the developer will have to go back to the state agency in this case mass housing and we'll have to present the final approved application and move forward with what will be the

building permits um construction permits etc etc um they just have to make sure that they meet all the standards and requirements as they follow and the restrictions imposed in the 4B if any and in the case that there was safe harbor can I ask you go back one slide to that one so yep that one um So if a comprehensive permit is approved and no appeal is filed within the deadline, um who has standing to bring an appeal on the approval of a comprehensive permit? Do you know? Who has the option?

Who who has standing in the ability to to to appeal? to my understanding, uh, it could be the If you want, I'm happy to kick this back over to the law department. Um, just because I think, um, I I'd be interested as a board member as well as a, you know, as well as a resident of the city. Um, and I'm sure there are people in the audience who would like to know what their rights would be as well. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm happy to just hold it back because I do I'm not I'm not as clear. Yeah, thank you.

Um so yes, so this will be the point of construction once they all the architectural engineering plans will be at the building permit level. So they will be filing with the inspectional service for the revision. Um and so for the planning board involvement uh coming back to the 30-day comment period where we started um once the materials have been given to the city and they can be provided to the boards to provide comment um the planning board can provide comments on site design infrastructure community impact uh and the consistency with the master plan. Um as mentioned before you the applicant must provide the list of waiverss that they're looking to uh apply for and bypass from the local zoning. So you can also provide comments to that and um through my experience all these letters are helpful to just provide to the CBA prior um in both cases right like when you're providing it to the agency with all the comments that you would like to see as they take this in consideration to make the decision of providing the project eligibility letter and the same form for the CBA once they're opening the public hearing. Um once that information is provided um we can have it in a in the public agenda and provide any comments and then me as staff I'm happy to take any comments from the planning board members um and just kind of like consolidate it and bring it back so we can review it before sending it either to the state agency of the CBA or whichever state um that happens.

Um can can I ask a quick question going go back one slide um Uh it says here consistency with summervision 2040. Uh do we have an updated uh Davis square plan? Not at the moment. So there is so the only consistency that we are looking for is alignment with summer vision not any neighborhood plan. Correct. Okay.

I can I ask I think if I bring that up then that's right where I was going. We don't have an approved David Dav David Square neighborhood plan, but we do have the approved Davis Square commercial area which covers this geography even though it is a different plan type than a full neighborhood plan I believe. Would that this might be a question for Mike or might be a question for Alvaro. Would that be considered the sort of guiding neighborhood plan document at this stage? Not going to answer that question quite yet. And I think we need some additional guidance.

Yeah, I I agree. I don't know if there will be some difference be between a neighborhood plan and a commercial one and because this one is focusing uh only on housing. Um so I'm happy to bring that question back um and double check.

I don't think it's focused only on housing. I think it's at the minimum a mixeduse because it has first floor retail. There's a lot in that plan as I recall about uh the urban form of Davis Square and the reorganization of the street grid and sort of the the broader um I want to say urban experience of the square. Um there was a lot in it about sort of streets and sidewalks and pedestrian mobility as I haven't looked at it in some time but as I recall. Mhm. I think before we get too far in the process, we should get some clarity in that since it will be a short period of time and that feels like um appropriate homework for planning board members is to review. Um if there is a neighborhood or commercial plan that will um that any proposal will have to uh be um aligned with for us to have reviewed that ahead of time. again since it's such a short uh comment period I believe.

Yeah, I'm happy to look into it and distribute it if Thank you.

possible. Mhm. Um so yeah that's that's the gist of the the 4B process itself the timeline and kind of like what will be the areas and topics that the planning board will be looking at and sort of making comments within those two main time periods. Um that being said, once the public hearing is open and the CBA is following the process of the 4EB, um the planning board members can look into the hearings and can provide any other comments either as as a planning board or as a regular citizen. They can provide any of those comments at any point during the public hearing.

Yep. I think I'm understanding from this that the planning board will not be taking testimony on this at any point, but that public testimony will go strictly through the ZBA process. That the planning board's recommendations are coming out of internal planning board discussion, of course, in a public forum. Um, is that correct? Yes. Thank you.

Oh, thanks very much for this. this um this is helpful for certainly for me because we haven't uh gone through this process in quite a long time. Um and I'm not sure that the process in 2022 mirrored what this um reflects. So, um I think this was certainly beneficial for for me and for for other members of the board and I hope that it at least gave uh the members of the public who joined us tonight uh some insight into what to expect going forward with with this application um the engagement that they can have um the rights that they will have and the um the involvement that the planning board will have too. So, I don't think then um that there's anything left on the planning board's agenda. Our next meeting is what? March March 5th. Does that sound right?

Yes. March 5th. Um and right now you think that there will be um a case that will be here. Yes, there was one case uh advertised for that meeting. Great. So, nothing else on the agenda of the planning board. Um the I see Ailia.

Mr. Chair, could um could I request the addition potentially of an item of other business um for the next meeting to discuss uh ways in which the city sustainability goals and the form-based code may need to be reconciled as just sort of an open discussion topic. um if if the if it pleases the chair.

Yeah, of course. Um especially since I think next agenda will be fairly light. I don't think that's going to really impact, you know, the flow of the evening. Um and Alvaro, do you think that there is an appropriate member of city staff who can be present um to engage in that discussion with us? Yeah, I'm happy to reach out to the sustainability office to see if anybody's available.

Nothing else. Um, at what heck is it? 6:42. We did great. Um, at 6:42 p.m. the chair moves to adjourn. Seconded by Amelia Alvaro. Can we have a roll call, please? Johan Khabib. I. Lyn Richards. I. Ameilia Abel. Hi. Michael Capluano. Hi. Uh, Carly Cooper. Hi. Congratulations on your first vote. Um, thank you. Thank you everybody. See you in a few weeks. Thank you. Bye. Thank you.